Noctilux Photos

Marc-A. said:
Bonjour Ned,
I don't like the tone (not the first time I tell you) but I like your pictures (that's the most important thing) and I'm quite convinced by your explanation.
Understand me: I fully appreciate that the specificity of the Noctilux is that it can be use at f1 and f8. But if one never shoots at f1, it seems stupid that he buys Nocti, right?
So the question is still: do you need, in your practice, the extra stop (I mean f1)? I guess you do; but then could you tell us which pictures have been shot wide open?
Best,
Marc

Edit: I've just read the whole thread. there's at least one picture you mentioned as being taken wide open, so just don't mind my question. But I'd still like to know if the picture below has been taken wide open.
Click to expand...

Sorry for not answering, Marc. This thread has many people participating and I kind of got lost. I also blame my deficient diagonal fast reading skills. I often answer questions that have never been asked or answer bluntly.

Yes, that picture was shot at f1.0 with a Iso 50 film.

The usable and sharp f1.0 aperture means a lot to me. It meant that I could take pictures of anything at the Louvre with Velvia 50 film and not going below 1/30, worst case. It makes Velvia sing and usable anywhere.
I like Iso 100 film (apx-100 and Plus-X). Again, it means I can use those films even at night time and rarely go below 1/30.
Its character is unique, of course.

I own the Noct-Nikkor and I use it a lot but only in lowlight situations, It sux anywhere else. The Noctilux doesn't. That is the main difference.
 
NB23 said:
Sorry for not answering, Marc. This thread has many people participating and I kind of got lost. I also blame my deficient diagonal fast reading skills. I often answer questions that have never been asked or answer bluntly.

Yes, that picture was shot at f1.0 with a Iso 50 film.

The usable and sharp f1.0 aperture means a lot to me. It meant that I could take pictures of anything at the Louvre with Velvia 50 film and not going below 1/30, worst case. It makes Velvia sing and usable anywhere.
I like Iso 100 film (apx-100 and Plus-X). Again, it means I can use those films even at night time and rarely go below 1/30.
Its character is unique, of course.

I own the Noct-Nikkor and I use it a lot but only in lowlight situations, It sux anywhere else. The Noctilux doesn't. That is the main difference.
Click to expand...

Thanks Ned. That's all I wanted to know. I understand the choice of the Noctilux then. Ignore my other post, it was only for the sake of argument, but this answer suits me.
What I find astonishing is the DOF you get at f1. It's amazing. I guess you were 2 m or 3 m off the subject (don't know the equivalent in feet), but still the DOF is amzing.
Thanks for the reply.
Amicalement,
Marc
 
Marc-A. said:
Thanks Ned. That's all I wanted to know. I understand the choice of the Noctilux then. Ignore my other post, it was only for the sake of argument, but this answer suits me.
What I find astonishing is the DOF you get at f1. It's amazing. I guess you were 2 m or 3 m off the subject (don't know the equivalent in feet), but still the DOF is amzing.
Thanks for the reply.
Amicalement,
Marc
Click to expand...

Trust me, the Noctilux is NOT about thin depth of field. It's almost impossible to get thin DOF when shooting normal subjects. Some people want that effect and that is why they all end up selling the lens. They will be much better served with a 90 f2...
 
Last edited:
bessasebastian said:
Now thats funny.
Click to expand...

What's funny? If the sole point of owning the noctilux is for subject isolation, that person will not own the noct for a long time. That's exactly the reason people criticize this lens, because it's not what they expected. That's also the reason why we read many "I owned the lens but I sold it. I was disapointed in it" kinda posts. A 300 f2.8 is more realistic in those cases, IMO.

The same goes fore people that are expecting the Voigtlander 28 1.9 to blur out backgrounds and separate the subjects and then they post how they are disapointed in the lens because it's not what they thought it would be. Don't laugh, it's true...
 
NB23 said:
Trust me, the Noctilux is NOT about thin depth of field. It's almost impossible to get thin DOF when shooting normal subjects. Some people want that effect and that is why they all end up selling the lens. They will be much better served with a 90 f2...
Click to expand...


IMO the Noctilux is about very low light photography when the absolute max speed lens is required. I sold my 1.2 Noctilux because it was so specialised that it's performance was less than average stopped down below f4. I wasn't a good general purpose lens at all. IMO from my memory from shooting the f1 for a year and a half in the mid 70 it wasn't that good for average shooting either. Just my personal opinion, heavy, large and only good performance not excellent.

For subject isolation slr's can't be beat. The Canon 85 1.2, 135 f2, 200 f1.8 on up are the trick. When I want isolation I always go to one of the above 3 lenses. One day soon I'll post images from all 3.
 
Isolating the subject isn't always a function of FL or even aperture. Here are a few examples:

The image of the fellow in the bushes was shot with my 21 3.5 Super Angulon. The exagerated persp[ective pushed the background back enough to make the foreground jump out but still retain enough of the background activity to let you know what's happening. A longer lens with a fast aperture would have isolated the subject but the background would have gone into mush. Printing played a big part here too by butning the edges dwn to bring attention into the subject.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=13253&cpage=3#poststart


These three were shot with my v1 90 elmarit at full or near full aperture. DOF isolation worked here.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=25882

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=25881

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=13254

Another shot with the 21 SA isolating the subject by pushing the background back and placing more emphasis on the front subject.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=13236

Fast aperture isolation with the 75mm summilux shot at f1.4

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=58094

Placement of the subject, FL, aperture and printing bring attention and isolate without total elimination of the environment. Like the shot of the police surrounding the student in the bushes the environment tells an important part of the story.

28mm Ultron somewhere around f2.8? Don't remember exactly.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=59029
 
Krosya said:
Wow, didn't you just get that 75 and kept saying how happy you are with 35/75 combo? What happened now? I'd stick to the kit you have now (plus I understand you have 50mm too), until you get to know it well enough. Jumping from one to the other like this will never keep you satisfied, nor will you develop your own style. You have some great gear already - why change? Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

I am very happy, just being silly.
 
X-ray, you have some really good and interesting stuff in your gallery ! It's like a time-travel seeing the photos from ~ 30 years ago when I was a kid. From what I saw, you used the Super-Angulon-M / Summilux 35mm / M4 for some of your photos. Was it a popular combination at that time because I have seen other photographer having used the same kit.
 
x-ray said:
IMO the Noctilux is about very low light photography when the absolute max speed lens is required. I sold my 1.2 Noctilux because it was so specialised that it's performance was less than average stopped down below f4. I wasn't a good general purpose lens at all. IMO from my memory from shooting the f1 for a year and a half in the mid 70 it wasn't that good for average shooting either. Just my personal opinion, heavy, large and only good performance not excellent.

For subject isolation slr's can't be beat. The Canon 85 1.2, 135 f2, 200 f1.8 on up are the trick. When I want isolation I always go to one of the above 3 lenses. One day soon I'll post images from all 3.
Click to expand...

Good to know you've sold the Noctilux because it was not up to the all-around shooting task as opposed to being a novelty lens.

I also understand if your sample was good at f4 and up, you wouldn't have sold it? My sample is excellent at all f stops and that's why I'm keeping it.

Believe me, I would have sold it long ago if it was no good at f4 and up.
 
I've now been waiting for my Nocti to arrive for 11 months. Don't ask me why I've waited so long... I think,maybe, I've been looking at the waiting game as some kind of forced savings, especially since I paid for the lens on order to secure a good price. A big part of me thinks that owning this lens, instead of say a 50 summilux, is a bit crazy. The other side of me thinks that I will probably not have a chance to buy one again new, especially with ideas creeping into my head about starting a family etc. And I could always sell it for about the same as I bought it for when it's no longer made.

Looking at these shots I think that I am not expecting magic from this piece of gear, just a good all around lens in my favourite FOV.

I look forward to posting some samples when mine arrives.
 
You should bring your noctilux to the next get together.

We should have one of those soon. How about thanksgiving night? I don't have anything else to do :( :p
 
NB23 said:
A 300 f2.8 is more realistic in those cases, IMO.
Click to expand...

But that's completely different focal length and not usable in tight spaces, right? Not to mention flat perspective.

TheQueenOfMagneticTapes.jpg


In my experience, Noctilux has steeper change from focus to ouf-of-focus area than other 50s in equivalent apertures.

Noctilux at f1.4 or f1.7, Tri-X 400 in D-76 1:1
 
Love this lens....and it has always led to heated discussions on forums. Long before the M8 was ever announced or stratospheric price increases came along, it seems to simply create polarization.

Some really nice stuff here.

Mine:
 

Attachments

  • bloomfield1.jpg
    bloomfield1.jpg
    106.2 KB · Views: 0
  • bucyrus.jpg
    bucyrus.jpg
    132.2 KB · Views: 0
  • chair.jpg
    chair.jpg
    146.9 KB · Views: 0
The original f1.2 Nocti had HAND GROUND asph front elements, not precise couputer aided shaping. Therefore there actually was a huge range in sample accuracy/quality. The new version doesn't have such issues, partly because it doesn't have asph elements.

Krosya said:
Sample difference in Noctilux? I thought it was like a handmade lens and I'd expect all work the same. Especially at this price tag. It's not Cv lens after all to have such a huge sample variation that one can be great at all f stops and another only good up to f4. Something is odd here. But if thats the case I have less and less trust in famous Leica quality!
Click to expand...
 
Japanese shooter on Nocti and M5 / M6

Japanese shooter on Nocti and M5 / M6

maddoc said:
It seems that it is not just you. Some of the Japanese photographer seem to prefer the M5 + Noctilux combination and I guess it is due to the size and the spot meter.
Click to expand...

Take a look at this guys gallery, these shots were my great inspiration for a Leica M3 with Canon 50mm 1.2 LTM since I cannot afford the Noctiluxes.

Link is here


My M3 arrived today, I'm as happy as a toddler with a balloon. Will have it CLA'd and the Canon 50mm 1.2 'welded' to it soon. Using Kodak E100G to get close to the Kodachrome quality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom